|
I don't and don't believe I will every be able to afford it. I think there must be many people on very high salaries, who can afford these high payments and deposits alongside the rest of the cost of living eg mortgages, pension payments, wear and tear on your property, holidays, children etc.
The most I have spent on a car is £10,000 and I would never spend more than that. I have kept the car for 6 years and intend to keep it until 10 years old at the very least. So I expect the capital cost to be spread over those 7 years and possibly I might get say £2500 back so that's say £1000 per year depreciation cost. My car has been 100% reliable and I expect the same to continue. I bought it at 3 years and it was less than 40% of the list price - the poor previous owner lost £14k in that process (as it was a factory order and a niche model from a japanese company famous for no discounts) and then had to find the same again to replace. I am flabbergasted that people can stomach paying out say £15-20k plus every three years or so either in upfront costs or on accumulated payments (it is effectively the same - there is no magic money fiddle) for cars that depreciate so much.
If I was having to find £5-8K per year in car costs (ie more depreciation from a new car) above what I pay now that would mean 2-3 nice holidays per year forgone, or no spare money for property repairs/improvements or replacement of other things that wear out or no extra pension or ISA saving that year. I assume so many people must be putting such stuff on credit or the mortgage and never paying for it at time it is incurred directly out of earned income, so it is always played forward on the assumption they'll some day actually reckon for it.
I had a boss who was always talking about "releasing equity" every time he changed mortgage provider and yet I saw it as "adding debt" so you'd be further away from paying it off. Didn't make sense to me. Prefer to owe as little as possible to anyone.
But like an earlier poster I am pleased some do buy new so I've got something to buy at 3-4 years old.
|
Taking your criteria one by one, Skidpan :
Economical - fuelwise, perhaps there have been marginal gains during this century, driven by the CO2 forces. Maintenance-wise I am not so sure. Reliable: while everything continues to work, fine; when it stops, a recent car may be an expensive problem.
I could go back further but since you mention this century I will use that as my starting point. The first car I bought this century was a Ford Puma. Over the almost 6 years I owned the car it averaged 33 mpg. The car had 125 PS and about 120 torques, went pretty well but not stunning. Compare that to the Leon 140 PS I bought in 2013 and the Superb 150 PS I bought in 2017. Both of those averaged about 45 mpg despite both of them being heavier and much bigger than the Puma as well as being more powerful and having far more torques (184). A 36% increase is hardly marginal. Servicing costs more now than it did in 2000 but so does everything else. In the first 4 years the Puma did have a few minor issues costing about £300 to fix outside the 12 month warranty whereas the Leon and Superb had none.
Comfort comes and goes. The seats in a 205 were always comfortable for long journeys; in a 206 not so, in my limited experience. Every new model gets trendy redesigned seats, and they don't always get them right.
Some cars I have owned have had rubbish seats but only one car has caused me back pain and that was the Puma, I needed a 10 minute stop every 60 or so miles to have a walk round and ease the pain before setting off again. But there is more to comfort than seats, there is driving position, ride and one issue that can cause serious discomfort over a long journey which is interior noise. The Leon was an extrreemply relaxing car over long distances as is the Suberb, cannot say that about all the cars we have owned. Problem is you only get a brief opportunity to assess the car on a test drive and many problems only become apparent later after buying it, like the Puma seats.
Polluting: again, driven by CO2 forces, some minor gains to get under the magic 100g/km number. Otherwise, any 21st-century car is pretty clean if its clean-up devices are looked after.
Forget the 100g/kg figure, it was just a fudge to get zero VED and low company car tax. Its also very difficult to compare older cars to more modern ones since the way cars are measured and figures displayed has changed several time. One simple fact you cannot ignore is the less petrol/diesel you use the less you pollute and our current cars are way better than cars 20 years ago in this respect. Compare it to cars we owned in the 70's and its a huge improvement.
Corrosion does increase with age, as a fact of life and chemistry, but I suspect that some makes have been cutting corners and failing to protect cars as well as they used to.
The Puma was well known for rust and it was bubbling through on the rear wings on ours when we swapped it. But 21 years after I bought it new its still on the road taxed and MOT'd so probably not that bad. Will have to look at Leons and Superbs in many years time to see if they are better but I would expect them to be based on the other 4 VAG cars we owned last century.
Equipped: there's a whole lot of possibly not redundant, but certainly inessential, gubbins in new models, largely to show punters that they are buying an 'improved' model. Many buyers will ignore many of them once the novelty wears off.
At the time I bought it the Puma was without doubt the best equipped car I had ever owned but to get some of the kit (A/C etc) I had to specify the custom pack. But the Puma did not have Bluetooth, DAB radio, SDcard/USB media, cruise control, lumbar and height adjust seats to name just a few that are used on a daily basis. But lets not forget the equipment that is fitted that we do not see which is safety related. The Puma had 1 airbag, the Leon had 4, the Superb 6. The Puma had traction control that simply made a noise to frighten you and did nothing, the Puma and Suberb both had far more sophisticated systems that intervene when needed in a much more subtle manner. The Superb had front sensing radar and Adaptive cruise which made long distance travel much more relaxing, no need to keep resetting the cruise on a busy motorway especially in roadworks. The Puma had 5 gears, 6 is pretty much the norm now.
Some on here will say they don't want such kit, they are happy with basic cars. But how many actually go out and buy the bog standard Dacia that they are so keen to suggest others buy, not seen one yet. We all want modern features, who would give up their smartphone.
Look at our houses. We did not have central heating at home until 1976, winters were nothing to look forward to with one open fire and drafts from ill fitting doors and windows. The wife did not have an indoor toilet until she went to college and they had no bathroom, it was metal bath in front of the fire.
Perhaps some of the members who look back through rose tinted specs should move into a cave for a few years or drive a 60's car with no heater or brakes etc and report back on how much better things were then.
|
Perhaps some of the members who look back through rose tinted specs should move into a cave for a few years or drive a 60's car with no heater or brakes etc and report back on how much better things were then.
I'm looking at my father's second hand Rover P4 (a fairly commonplace 50's car) through my untinted retroscope, and remember driving it down to Cornwall when I was seventeen. It was very comfortable with armrests both sides of the front seats. I think the one on the door was adjustable. It had a heater, radio....and brakes. It was capable of cruising at 90mph in overdrive top gear and I believe it had a top speed of over 100. It also had a starting handle, which in the absence of a 'left your lights on' bleeper, was v useful. The 60's Rovers ( he next had a 2000TC as a retirement present to himself) were even better. For a long distance journey it would be interesting to compare it with our car sixty years younger.... MrsF's Peugeot 2008.
|
The 60's Rovers ( he next had a 2000TC as a retirement present to himself) were even better. For a long distance journey it would be interesting to compare it with our car sixty years younger.... MrsF's Peugeot 2008.
I remember a mate of dads having a 2000TC at the same time dad had a Cortina 2000. The 2000TC was on a different level trim wise (leather and fake wood) compared to the Cortina (bare metal and plastic) but boy was the 2000TC cramped for a 16 year old to ride in. Would not have been much fun on a family holiday compared to the Cortina.
We all look back on old cars from our past with affection, even I do it, but fortunately reality wakes me up and I realise I would not want to do the Scottish trip in something as recent as an 80's Bluebird (which had reasonable kit) let alone a 60's Consul (which had nothing) instead of a 2020 Superb.
|
We all look back on old cars from our past with affection, even I do it, but fortunately reality wakes me up and I realise I would not want to do the Scottish trip in something as recent as an 80's Bluebird (which had reasonable kit) let alone a 60's Consul (which had nothing) instead of a 2020 Superb.
Completely right. I bought a car in 1980 and kept it for 25 years. In 2005 I sold it to get a vehicle with power steering, automatic transmission and air conditioning. The newer vehicle has been much more reliable as well as more comfortable. The old one needed a new exhaust every 4 or 5 years. The newer one is getting its first new exhaust tomorrow. It is much the same with the rest of the stuff on the car. 25 years on and the progress shows. I expect it will be the same with the latest 2021 cars however I don't fancy many of their features such as touch screens and electronic hand brakes.
|
We all look back on old cars from our past with affection, even I do it, but fortunately reality wakes me up and I realise I would not want to do the Scottish trip in something as recent as an 80's Bluebird (which had reasonable kit) let alone a 60's Consul (which had nothing) instead of a 2020 Superb.
Completely right. I bought a car in 1980 and kept it for 25 years. In 2005 I sold it to get a vehicle with power steering, automatic transmission and air conditioning. The newer vehicle has been much more reliable as well as more comfortable. The old one needed a new exhaust every 4 or 5 years. The newer one is getting its first new exhaust tomorrow. It is much the same with the rest of the stuff on the car. 25 years on and the progress shows. I expect it will be the same with the latest 2021 cars however I don't fancy many of their features such as touch screens and electronic hand brakes.
Good luck finding one without those 'features', plus having much change from £20k if buying new. All those new features don't come cheap.
The difference between a car made in the 1980s and early 2000s is stark in terms of performance, emissions/mpg, engineering quality/reliability/longevity, but its far less so between the latter and those made today, aside perhaps to some degree the emissions.
I would say because the cars from the 2000s had far less gadgets/tech on them (and which is fully tested before going to market, they are often more reliable and easier (and cheaper) to fix.
If the latest cars applied that they might easily last 30 years. The reason that there are still so many cars on the road built from the late 90s to the late 2000s is not just because they are built to last, but because the TLC they need is far less expensive than those that followed, which cost a small fortune to buy new and repair - even for what used to be minor items such as lights.
|
|
<< I would say because the cars from the 2000s had far less gadgets/tech on them (and which is fully tested before going to market, they are often more reliable and easier (and cheaper) to fix. >>
Thinking about it rationally, I guess when the profusion of gadgets reached a certain point, the only way for a driver to manage them all was by a touchscreen with a menu system - which by then was probably also the cheaper way to do it. Not necessarily the most convenient way while driving perhaps - nor the cheaper solution to a failure ?
|
|
|
|
|
<< Some on here will say they don't want such kit, they are happy with basic cars. But ... we all want modern features, who would give up their smartphone.
Look at our houses. We did not have central heating at home until 1976, winters were nothing to look forward to with one open fire and drafts from ill fitting doors and windows. The wife did not have an indoor toilet until she went to college and they had no bathroom, it was metal bath in front of the fire. >>
Your views on life make an interesting comparison with mine, Skidpan - I have no smartphone to give up (yet), nor have I owned or wanted cruise control (for example) as I do very few journeys where it would have any real use. On the other hand my houses (three) have all had central heating since our first purchase (new) in 1967. I guess we differ in our priorities, and possibly in the amount of cash we consider 'spare'.
As a matter of interest, I have just completed a survey of my entire car ownership, including the kids' bangers (late 1980s) and my more recent 'fun' cars. The worst overall fuel consumption (38mpg) came from a 205 GTi and a 306 cabrio (2 litre). All other petrol cars gave well over 40, the best being a Punto which managed almost 52; even the 1.8 brick-shaped Prairie did 41, which I found remarkable. Diesels between 53 (205 Dturbo) and 61 (current 207).
Engine tech has certainly advanced over decades, but much of the gains have been offset by increased weight of vehicle - for various reasons.
Edited by Andrew-T on 05/04/2021 at 10:32
|
As a matter of interest, I have just completed a survey of my entire car ownership, including the kids' bangers (late 1980s) and my more recent 'fun' cars. The worst overall fuel consumption (38mpg) came from a 205 GTi and a 306 cabrio (2 litre). All other petrol cars gave well over 40, the best being a Punto which managed almost 52; even the 1.8 brick-shaped Prairie did 41, which I found remarkable. Diesels between 53 (205 Dturbo) and 61 (current 207).
Very briefly my worst car for mpg was without doubt a 3 year old Vauxhall Viva 1800, 22 mpg approx.
1600 Escort Mk 2, 30 mpg so getting better.
Golf GTi (x 2) 32 mpg very happy considering performance.
and more recently the Leon and Superb both 45 mpg.
The improvements in recent times have been staggering thanks to the small turbo engined cars.
Regarding diesels the worst was a Mondeo 2.0 TDCi which averaged about 40 mpg, the best a Kia ceed 1.6 CRDi which averaged 51 mpg. The Golf TDi and BMW 118D sat between those figures.
When i got the first Caterham it was a road spec 135 bhp 1700 x-flow car on twin 40 and it averaged about 25 mpg. The 2nd Caterham was race spec 175 bhp 1860 x-flow which averaged about 16 mpg on twin 45's. Now that same car has a 2 litre Zetec on throttle body EFI with about 175 bhp and averages about 35 mpg.
Just shows how modern engine technology can improve the efficiency of an older car.
|
|
|
<< Some on here will say they don't want such kit, they are happy with basic cars. But ... we all want modern features, who would give up their smartphone.
Look at our houses. We did not have central heating at home until 1976, winters were nothing to look forward to with one open fire and drafts from ill fitting doors and windows. The wife did not have an indoor toilet until she went to college and they had no bathroom, it was metal bath in front of the fire. >>
Your views on life make an interesting comparison with mine, Skidpan - I have no smartphone to give up (yet), nor have I owned or wanted cruise control (for example) as I do very few journeys where it would have any real use. On the other hand my houses (three) have all had central heating since our first purchase (new) in 1967. I guess we differ in our priorities, and possibly in the amount of cash we consider 'spare'.
As a matter of interest, I have just completed a survey of my entire car ownership, including the kids' bangers (late 1980s) and my more recent 'fun' cars. The worst overall fuel consumption (38mpg) came from a 205 GTi and a 306 cabrio (2 litre). All other petrol cars gave well over 40, the best being a Punto which managed almost 52; even the 1.8 brick-shaped Prairie did 41, which I found remarkable. Diesels between 53 (205 Dturbo) and 61 (current 207).
Engine tech has certainly advanced over decades, but much of the gains have been offset by increased weight of vehicle - for various reasons.
Indeed - I'm no technophobe or technophile, but tend to buy and keep things that I need for practical reasons and that do the job.
Case in point is my mobile phones: I still own, and use, a 'vintage' Nokia 3410 'dumb' (2G) phone bought in 2003 for £80. Battery still fine, and lasts far longer than most new smartphone batteries. Admitedly charging takes longer, but it isn't an issue.
I do have a smartphone, but that is a good value (£125, but still decent) Nokia 5.2 used as a defacto tablet/satnav and backup phone on PAYG (Giffgaff) with 1mo only contracts for holiday etc when used more often/during the day (and as a full satnav with live traffic).
As it has 2 SIM slots, it meant that once networks do away with 2G compatability (only a few now provide this), I at least have a phone that has cheap PAYG (and no need to keep regularly topping up - Asda) plus a contract service that I can get good rates for 1mo periods (or ongoing) at no penalty (Giffgaff) on the same phone. For now, as long as my 3410 still works, I'll use that for the most part.
Same goes for my car - unless I'm suddenly awash with cash (unlikely at the moment), then I'll run my Mazda3 until it becomes uneconomic or impossible to repair. I've only owned two cars since I bought my first one, a Nissan Micra, 23 years ago. I only got rid of that because it was too small for holiday/work and serious corrosion was starting to set in.
I miss the 52-53mpg (average) it gave, even though my much larger/heavier (and much quicker/better handling) Mazda can 'only' manage 41mpg (not bad, given the manufacturere average is listed as 38mpg). Spending around £10k more to buy a direct replacement in order to achieve around 5mpg or so more is no incentive when the money is tight.
I made sure that the Micra's replacement was good value and that I didn't over-specify it. The same goes for a lot of my home appliances, etc - my Denon hifi is now about 13-14yo, but I managed to get a great deal on it as it was a returned (unwanted, not broken) item and it saved me a 1/3rd on the normal price. I could've bought a more flashy, feature-laden unit, but didn't need the features.
My computer too - admitedly I spent more than usual for a custom-build, but again it has lasted 9 years (previous pre-specced ones lasted [broke or became too slow] around the 5-6 year mark) and will keep going (and is perfectly fine, speed-wise) until the security side becomes too risky (Win7).
I like the 'Ronseal' type products - ones that so what they say on the proverbial tin, well, at a reasonable price and last a long time.
|
|
|
|
We all want modern features, who would give up their smartphone.
I would. I LOATHE my smartphone.
Every b***** time I touch it it does something I don't want it to do.
But it was a present, so I'm not allowed to chuck it out of a 20 story window, though its been close.
Perhaps some of the members who look back through rose tinted specs should move into a cave for a few years or drive a 60's car with no heater or brakes etc and report back on how much better things were then.
I'm pretty sure I would remember if 60's cars didn't have brakes.
|
We all want modern features, who would give up their smartphone.
I would. I LOATHE my smartphone.
Every b***** time I touch it it does something I don't want it to do.
But it was a present, so I'm not allowed to chuck it out of a 20 story window, though its been close.
Perhaps some of the members who look back through rose tinted specs should move into a cave for a few years or drive a 60's car with no heater or brakes etc and report back on how much better things were then.
I'm pretty sure I would remember if 60's cars didn't have brakes.
Also, did many 60's cars not have heaters?. I'd have thought most, if not all, would have by then.
|
Also, did many 60's cars not have heaters?. I'd have thought most, if not all, would have by then.
I certainly remember some 1100s without heaters. I suspect they were an option, possibly dealer-installed ?
|
Also, did many 60's cars not have heaters?. I'd have thought most, if not all, would have by then.
I certainly remember some 1100s without heaters. I suspect they were an option, possibly dealer-installed ?
I was kind of surprised when I finally realised my 1986 Skywing doesn't apparently have a heater, at least in a conventional sense.
It COULD be the aircon system can provide some such function, but (apart from on the pre-purchase test drive) I've never used the aircon and would assume it now doesn't work.
Lack of heat is of course not a big deal in Taiwan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
